Michelle Wie can help bail out LPGA and its players

The 2004 U.S. Women’s Open was won by Meg Mallon. After I spoke with her during a practice round, she went to go buy a cap at the souvenir tent because she didn’t have any other cap along.

And there was no logo on her shirt. She didn’t have a shirt sponsor, either.

So had all the companies who passed by the U.S. Women’s Open champ earlier in the year really screwed up, or had they acted wisely and saved their money?

For those of us who love golf, and love to watch great golf, Mallon’s plight was appalling. How could one of the LPGA’s established, recognizable players—a past U.S. Open winner!—not have a hat or shirt sponsor? To the people who sign endorsement deal checks, I guess, it was a wise move. Who watches women’s golf, anyway?

Enter Michelle Wie and her immediate $10 million in endorsement deals.

Now, some LPGA veterans might be spiteful or resentful that they never made this kind of dough.

The smart players, however, should be grateful: Wie’s deals pull up the market value of LPGA sponsorship across the board. More people will watch LPGA events to see Wie, boosting viewership, along with, presumably, the willingness of companies to sew their logos on shirts and hats.

All of this will happen regardless of whether or not she wins immediately. As long as she continues to bomb the ball and at least makes a go at several championships (as she already has), she will continue to be a draw for the LPGA. Now, if she completely fizzles (think Jennifer Capriati in her early years), then all bets are off.

In the short term, however, it’s win-win for both her and the LPGA. Other players critical of her should get a clue.

By the way, yesterday was Wie’s 16th birthday. What do you buy a girl who has $10 million? Certainly not a cap. Her sponsors provide her with plenty of those.

70 comments

It would be nice if people on the LPGA was as right-minded as you , unfortunately, jealousy and resentment among LPGA players will probably prevail. Maybe they have changed , but after hearing how horrible Kelli Kuehne was treated when went pro, I highly doubt it.

Kiel,
Good article. I think the majority of the LPGA pros do not want to face the fact that Michelle will be hitting a pitching wedge on the 425+ par fours when they will be hitting 5 and 7 woods. Of course, she will be able to reach all of the par fives in two. Some day Morgan (Trashmouth) Pressel will have to beat Michelle with her clubs and not her mouth! As Forest Gump used to say..."stupid is as stupid does" certainly applies to Ms. Pressel. Lastly, the media has not given much credit to Michelle after she donated $500,000 to the Katrina victims. To put this in perspective, Serena gave $100 for every ace she got in one tournament and Venus stated "they will be in my prayers." All of the lady pros which may show resentment have not been with Michelle during those hundreds of hours on the practise range and golf course. I wish her the best and I am certain she will succeed.

Good article--but I am worried about how Michelle Wie will be treated by other LPGA players.

I recently read an article about the bad treatment Kelli Kuehne received when she was signed to a big endorsement deal by Nike-who had to subsequently drop other LPGA players' endorsements so they could sign her. She was snubbed by many players although it was Nike's decision to drop the other players.

Now that I read Juli Inkster had to be disinvited to the Samsung so Michelle could get a spot,and that Inkster's old caddie is now Michelle's -I'm hearing similar grumblings towards Michelle.

Dottie Pepper said on a Michelle Wie special on the Golf Channel that other players are mad at Michelle because she and her Dad did not approach Inkster first before signing her caddie. I thought this was very catty since it was the caddie's decision to quit Inkster and work for Michelle.

Dottie Pepper also described how Michelle likes to insulate herself by always being with her parents and not hanging around with other players. I also thought this was unfair because Michelle is SO young, of course she's going to be with her parents! She shouldn't be hanging around by herself with a bunch of twenty year olds or thirty year olds!.

I don't think Michelle will ever win over these people-jealousy is a powerful emotion and its hard to get rid of.

Joe-- You are an idiot. And because you are an idiot you obviously do not make enough money to know about the charitable giving tax deduction (Big deductions seem like magic to you ..don't they?). The fact that she gets a deduction does not make the gift less real to those who get it or make it not real money out of her pocket. She is in the 35% tax bracket which means after deduction the she is still out of pocket $325,000 (She is actually limited on itemized deductions so that amount is likely higher). So just in giving to Katrina she is giving 3-4% of her income. BIG DEAL you say??? Are you doing the same?? I remember after winning a tournament the late Payne Stewart donated his check to a hospital. It was publicized, and he got a tax break?? Did that invalidate the gift?? Did it mean he was only seeking publicity??

She gets publicity anyway. Grow UP!

She gave $500,000 to a cause a long way from the world of a 16 year old Golfer, a world away from her native Hawaii. No one should make light of this.

Creamer often gets lost in the talk over the youth movement, but she is more focused on someday overtaking Sorenstam at No. 1 in women's golf.

From an article about the Samsung

"Creamer and Wie were on the Curtis Cup last year and by all appearances, they got along well.

``We're very good friends,'' Creamer said. ``A lot of people misjudge her. She's younger than everyone. But if she's bringing more attention to women's golf and more money with higher purses, that's great for me.''"

The reply had to do with why the media was not making a big deal out of the contribution. Sorry but I doubt it will be part of the normal charitable giving tax deduction. It will have more to do with Trust and Foundation giving and of course will be some cash out of pocket by her which is admirable.

As stated it is a nice gesture and will be meaningful to whoever gets it. As for me my own giving it can stand the light of day to those needing to know. As I hope you know giving is always more rewarding than receiving.

Try not to be so insulting and emotional about a simple exchange of thoughts. Perhaps not possible for you Wie folk though.

Joe, you posted above and said that Michelle's giving 500,000 was just a business thing, and to get her publicity. Of course people are going to react.
As stated, the majority of it still comes out of her pocket despite tax deductions.
Also as Metoo said, she doesn't need the publicity.

The gaff, about Serena should get a better management company was the funniest thing you said.
Imagine your horror, when it was pointed out that Serena has the exact same management company. This PROVES that it is not the management company pulling the string and is in fact a very kind gesture.

The inside story on the donation is that it was Michelle's idea. It has been circulated around Honolulu (where I live) that her parents were shocked by Michelle's suggestion that she donate $500,000. But they went along with it, because Michelle wanted to do it.
The donation does not suprise me. The school that she attends, Punahou, emphasizes the value of community service and giving. And yes my kids do attend the same school.

Not going to help other players at ALL. The media's so completely focused on Wie that anybody she's going to bring to the sport will be there exclusively for her. And the longtime fans, while not massive in numbers are tired of it and tuning out BIG TIME. If the LPGA continues to treat the rest of the players like they are now, and Wie either doesn't pan out or bails for another tour, they're screwed.

I don't see how having Hall-of-Fame players like Juli Inkster and Karrie Webb (this YEAR's inductee, for crying out loud) sitting at home can mean Michelle Wie playing is HELPING them.

How can people be tuning out BIG TIME if the ratings and ticket sales are way up everytime Michelle plays.
If the ratings are up-that just means more exposure for everyone else.
More exposure means bigger purses and more endorsement deals for everyone.

Since Tiger hit the scene, men's purses are about three to four times bigger. Everyone earns vastly more. In 1994, it took around $400,000 or $500,000 to qualify for the Tour Championship. This year it will take around $2 million. This is mostly due to Tiger Woods, and is why every pro golfer should say a little prayer for el Tigre the next time they walk into their multi-million dollar villas.

Wie could have a similar effect on the women's game. The catch, of course, is that she must win, win a lot, and win soon. Her window is open, but not forever.

Jim, I agree with everything you said you but I think there will be one more caveat. For Wie to have the type impact that Tiger did, she will probably have to compete well against the men. And when I say well, I mean she will have to do more than just make a cut here & there. After all, it wouldn't be new. Babe Zaharias did that in the 1940's and it eventually became a sort of novelty. If Wie does not do better than that, but still becomes the dominant force in the Womens game, the excitement will eventually temper and she will be viewed "only" as Nancy Lopez was and as Annika is now.

Shanks, if I remember correctly, Babe was the only woman ever to make a cut. So it is extremely rare and never happened in "modern" times.
The thing with Babe was that, in those days there was a further cut after 3 days. She did not make that cut, in fact she hit a VERY high score on day 3, something on or over 80 if I remember hearing correctly.

So if Wie makes the cut, she will be the first woman to play on a Sunday in the PGA tour.

sanyikashakur said:
I don't see how having Hall-of-Fame players like Juli Inkster and Karrie Webb (this YEAR's inductee, for crying out loud) sitting at home can mean Michelle Wie playing is HELPING them.
**********************
She is helping them, because due to her, prize money will rise in all events.
Also, she is there, because she is likely to hit a better score than them.

sanyikashakur said:
I don't see how having Hall-of-Fame players like Juli Inkster and Karrie Webb (this YEAR's inductee, for crying out loud) sitting at home can mean Michelle Wie playing is HELPING them.

------------------

I am not being mean: but it is because of Michelle Wie that many more people will now even know there is a Juli Inkster. Were not for Wie, Inkster would indeed be playing this weekend - playing along with 19 other players in involuntary secretion.

Joe-- I still say you are not getting this tax deal. It does not matter in what way Michelle Wie gives money ...through a foundation, through a trust, from a personal check.. the deuction works the same. Whether you doubt it or not, There is no "magic" rich people have that makes this deduction a "tax thing" (Perhaps the issue is you can't fathom someone giving that much to strangers unless they are getting a "deal"). Under all circumstances the gift will be $500,000 when received by the charity. Additionally, the gift (under each of the scenarios you present) will cost her $500,000 less the effect of a marginal tax rate.

I will apologize for my tone...but it seems to me it is Michelle that you owe an apology to for implying that her gift was anything less than it seemed to be.

If you expect respect in these exchanges...shouldn't she get the same?? You spent a few minutes jotting down your thoughts..she gave half a million to those in need, which really deserves the benefit of the doubt?

Shanks- I agree for Michelle Wie to ever really be bigger than Lopez or Sorenstam she will need to make an impact playing with men (the only exception to this is Michelle has a significance to a large asian audience that is yet to be measured).

I look at her playig with the men differently than you however. While I think it will be great to watch, it may actually HURT women's golf. If Michelle is really the advance guard of a new breed that wants to cross-over to the best competition...won't women's golf seem lesser (in the same way the senior tour seems lesser)

Meetoo, I think the people who watch her on the PGA tour will follow her back to the LPGA tour.
I don't know if she will ever win on the PGA tour. If she is making cuts and finishing at highest, say scraping the top 20, fans will want to follow her to the LPGA to see her win.

I'm guessing in a way, why would she go back to LPGA, so I suppose you are right in that regard.

An interesting point:
I just read an interesting article.
If Michelle becomes a member of the LPGA tour, she can only play 2 (TWO) PGA tour events in a year.
This is terrible and will probably be the ruination of the LPGA in regard to Michelle.

As Michelle stands, she can play 8 LPGA tournaments, and also 7 PGA tour events through exemptions. This sounds great, add to this some invites to other tours or exibtion type tournaments and that is great.

If she joins the LPGA, she is restricting herself. That is why she won't be joining any time soon.

It really looks like she will try to get a PGA tour card, and play the very top LPGA events. If the LPGA have any sense, they will drop this nonsensical rule. (TWO EVENTS!!!!)

If Michelle Wie becomes successful against the men, her adoring public will follow her EVERYWHERE. In no way would it ever hurt the LPGA. It would just increase the interest level above normal wherever she does play, kind of like Tiger has done whenever he plays anywhere.

I don't buy this "advance guard" & "crossover" stuff, however. Annika, who DOMINATES the LPGA - and hits it about as long as Wie - could only hope to make a few cuts here & there on the PGA Tour. If Michelle were to become a better player than Annika is now, would she settle for being a middle-of-the-road pro in the Big Show? No, I think she will always play the big-time Womens events for which she is eligible.

Nope, Creamer would struggle mightily on a PGA Tour course set-up, because she doesn't hit the long ball like Annika, Wie and a few others. Horses for courses, if you know what I mean.

While Creamer has had a better year than Wie in 2005, only time will tell who is the better golfer. Personally, I hope they wind up being close to equal so there can be a fierce rivalry like Palmer/Nicklaus or Hogan/Snead. But first, both of them need to catch Annika .... no small feat.

Annika wasn't serious about competing on the PGA. She wasn't used to playing the fast greens cut for the PGA. And as far as length is concerned--Michelle is trying to add to her length so she can better compete on the PGA. Michelle is also working on putting on greens cut in two different ways, those for the LPGA and those for the PGA. At her age, this might be worthwhile--but I don't think it would have made sense for Annika to do more than she did.

But if you want to compare Michelle and other women--think tennis. Imagine the women are clay court specialists, while Michelle is playing on grass courts when she plays against the men, and that doesn't even take into account the faster greens on the PGA which make it harder to stop a ball near the hole.

Jim, your comments there are good ones. I think the biggest difference is the power that the men have. Annika hits the ball about as far with the driver as the short hitters like Funk & Sluman, for example. But I think that is technology aided because she is about a half-club to a club shorter with the irons. So when it comes to approaches into the firmer greens, she is not able to hit the ball as high as the men, therefore, she could not attack any of the pins that were tucked. She had to play to the middle of most greens and try to make long putts for birdies. And that was on one of the shortest-playing courses on Tour. Those fairways at Colonial in summer is like playing on the highway.

Wie is a little more powerful giving her a slight advantage over Annika in that department. She is just (currently) lacking the mind & intestinal fortitude of Annika, which separates the very good from the great.

That has nothing to do with intestinal fortitude. Michelle could be the most confident and have the perfect mental attitude of the greatest winner, but if she goes up against Annika when Annika is on her A game, then Michelle stands no chance at this point.

Michelle palying on the PGA tour is merely a gimmick - and now that she has her fat sponsorship deals she should quit playing with the men for good. So what if she makes the occassional cut? She hasn't a hope of winning there. For her to cut it she has to win on the LPGA tour and win bunches of tournaments and majors. There are a handful of young women who in their hearts consider themselves at least as good if not better than Michelle. People talk about Wie's 'charisma' - bull - she's got as much charisma as a knat - admittedly a tall willowy moderately pretty gnat. She has a lovely swing but little experience of winning - other than the public links - shades of Ty Tyron?

David,
How do you know playing on the PGA tour is a gimmick? Who knows if she will win. I certainly don't know. Maybe she will and if she never does at least she is willing to give it a go. The real point is, we are lucky to have someone who is willing to at least try.

As regards the handful of women who consider themselves better, I'm sure there on, but that doesn't mean they are better.
Only Annika can say she is undoubtedly better. Then Creamer and Kerr can argue that they may be better. Even though Wie had a better year, that doesn't mean that she is necessarily better than them.

As regards the charisma thing, she has tonnes of the stuff. You are the only one I have come across, who has questioned this. Even most of the Anti-Wie brigade would have to admit that she has tonnes of charisma. If she has no charisma then what about Tiger Woods?

Hard to see charisma through a tv screen - must be experienced in person. Arnie's got it, Seve had it, Freddie, Tiger & Phil have it, but in different ways. Great golfers don't always have it though. Nicklaus, Player & Faldo come to mind.

And, as most neutral observers of the sport will attest, a non-winner can never have a better year than a multiple winner. Sorry, Norman.

It's all about the wins, baby. Tell me again - I forgot - but in addition to the high finishes, how many wins does Wie have?????

And I believe Tiger concerns himself with the record forWINNING majors ... not for being the 2nd place champ. The reason it's so impressive for Nicklaus is because he also WON 18 pro Majors to go along with the big finishes.

So what if Paula Creamer has more wins now-- Mickelson had 5 more wins than Tiger when Tiger first joined the PGA.
We all know that quickly changed and I think it will be the same for Michelle and Paula.

Talking about charisma ? Not even a contest-
Paula Creamer is about as inspiring as a stale piece of bread.

Shanks, if the discussion is about who had the better year, you're arguements are completely flawed.

You cannot say she is better for winning 2 events when she has played so many more than Michelle Wie. Fair is fair, if one person plays 22 events and another plays 8 events you cannot say whoever wins more is better. (quoting Norman for events played, if wrong blame him).

Think of it this way, if Paula won 9 events and Michelle won 8 events would that mean Paula is better because she won more.
Paula would have 9 from 22
and Michelle would have 8 from 8.

I have experience reading a few of these discussion, so I know Shanks will reply "but Michelle didn't win any, facts are facts".
Shanks I am only using the example to show that if Paula were to win 9 events, Michelle could not win more than her. Therefore your whole logic, that you base your case on is completely flawed.

When there is such a disparity in total events played, you have got to go on events played together:
Michelle leads 5 versus 3 to Paula.
That is a simple statistic, it is an undeniable statistic. I have seen many arguments here, but nobody can deny this statistic. It is a fact and it is conclusive. Michelle had a better year. No question.

Nah, we just get tired of the childish excuses and arguments. It cannot be helped if one player plays more or less than another. Results are all that matter. Now, go to your room ... and no tv after school, either.

You've proven squat, Norman. Doesn't make one bit of difference who plays how many times. That is just something that can't be helped. What continually amazes me is that you think somebody who has not won a single tournament has had a better year than someone who won 4. If you'll recall, I have said elsewhere that if Wie had've pulled off just 1 win, you would have some footing for your played-less-tournaments argument. But the fact is that Wie is still a non-winner and her results cannot possibly compare favorably to Creamers.

(By the way, I noticed that many of those "weak players" in that weak field in Japan managed to beat Annika last week. Didn't you say that a win there was expected of such an overwhelming favorite???)

The results speak for themselves.
Paula's first place is better than Michelle's. Aften that, if you choose Paula's 2nd best versus Michelle's 2nd best, or Paula's 3rd best versus Michelle's 3rd best etc. Paula never beats Michelle again apart from Michelle's dq.

Shanks, you really need to listen to other peoples arguments. Winning is the ultimate goal. It is the number 1 priority. However it is not the be all and end all.

You refer to the 4 wins. 3 of those Michelle didn't play in, so Michelle couldn't have possibly won events she wasn't in, unless you know of some way.

You cannot legitamately say that Paula is better than Michelle because she had better results in tournaments where Michelle wasn't there.

In the 8 events they played, even if you say
Paula's first place was, as much better than Michelle's 2nd,
as Michelle's 3rd was better than Paula's 15th.
I think that is stretching it a bit, but even if you say that, then the other events still put Michelle ahead.

It is an easy argument. There really isn't much to it. I don't think it is even a near thing. Michelle got the better of Creamer this year.

I have a feeling about Creamer though next year. I think she could easily outplay Michelle.

Dear Rodney, I have never said that Creamer is better than Wie. What I said was, Creamer had a better 2005 than Wie did. There is a difference. For example, Singh, Els & Mickelson ALL had a better 2004 than Tiger, but that does not mean they are better than he is.

And you are all wrong - WINNING makes a monstrous difference. It's not simply a mathematical equation where 1st place is +1 better than 2nd place. And if you don't understand that, you don't know much about how tournament golf is played.

As to your example, I'd take a win and a missed cut over a 2nd and 3rd. And so would every big-time golfer on the planet. Playing consistently well is one thing, but winning is a whole other ballgame. Tiger has spoiled the public by making it look easier than it is. If he's not the most choke-proof player in golf history, he is definitely in the top 3. Did you happen to watch Jim Furyk choke away a sure-fire win in Las Vegas 2 weeks ago? And he's a proven champion. When the Tour players vote for Player of the Year, a non-winner has NEVER gotten even one single vote, NOT EVER. The only time anyone would look at play other than wins is if the players in question were about equal in the win category first. Only then would consistently good play be considered as a determining factor.

To be fair, there is bound to be some players who have won at least a few events in the PGA in a given year, so I agree with you that players who haven't won at all have no chance.
For players who play full seasons if you don't win at all, you cannot be considered to have had a better year than someone who has won 3 or 4 times, no matter how consistant.

I saw Jim Furyk's display. He is a proven winner and a proven non-winner too.
Look at Sergio Garcia, he wins some but he is definetely not a good finisher, he should win MANY MANY more. Is he a proven winner, just because he manages to convert the very odd chance?

I checked out the article.
Of course Tiger isn't thrilled about 2nd place finishes. He has won loads and loads of titles, why would he be happy with 2nd place.

He is the one person, who you would say would be most unhappy with 2nd place. I think people make the biggest mistake when they compare Michelle Wie to Tiger. She is not Tiger Woods. Why is she compared to him. You can compare her and say (as Tiger does), that she is better than he was at her age, but that doesn't count for much. I'd say there are more players who were better than Tiger at early ages too, but they didn't finish out better.

The point is though, people like Woods are unhappy finishing 2nd at the tour championships. However give that to Padraig Harrington or Colin Montgomorie and they would be pleased with it. Why does it matter if Michelle is more like these players than Tiger. They are very fine players and would be great for others to aspire to be like. There is only one Tiger.
Many people want desperately for Michelle to fail. That is why they compare her to Tiger. In comparison to Tiger, you could say Ernie Els, or Padraig Harrington are failures. However they are both very fine golfers, even great golfers. If you were to compare Michelle to a top 20 golfer that would be unfair at this stage, but to compare her to the dominant, out and out, world number 1 .... what is that about?

Golfers like Harrington, Monty, et al are only pleased with some 2nds if there are also some wins to go along with them. You just don't have a clue how the best golfers in the world think. Winning is what they are after. Harrington, for example, acquired a US residence this year to facilitate playing more in the US. Know why? He felt that he would be better acclimated to golf over here, thereby giving him a better chance of WINNING in the US, especially the Majors. Had his Dad not become gravely ill and died, it may have worked. Distracted & worn down by the transatlantic flights as he was, he still managed to win 2 Tour events. So please, spare us your thoughts on how important 2nd place is.

Nobody has said that winning isn't the most important thing. What I have said is that 2nd place isn't worthless, or a failure as you keep implying.

Monty won recently, having not won for a year and a half. He was absolutely delighted with the win. Overjoyed, because it is SO IMPORTANT. However, before that he wasn't complaining. After the British Open, he was at pains to stress that he was delighted to have BEATEN everyone, bar the worlds best player.
Those are his exact words. That is a similar to what Michelle did at the LPGA championship and Paula did at the Samsung, beating everyone bar the worlds best player.
Just because they think 2nd place is a great achievement, doesn't mean they wouldn't much rather have 1st.

Harrington did decide to play more in the US, and yes, did win 2 events before events went further downhill. I'm glad he is getting back to some form now. He will definetely win a major in the next 2 years in my opinion. I think outside the top 5, there isn't anyone better.

PS.: A european will win a major next year. Shanks, on a seperate issue, since you obviously know a fair bit about golfers (even if we disagree about the important of winning), are you in any ways worried about the state of golf from youngsters in the US. Commentators here were saying that there isn't many good younger US players coming up (O'Hair & ...), it seems to be mainly older guys, whereas europe have lots of promising youngsters.

Not at all concerned about good young US players. Just 2 years ago, there was concern that the US women stars were aging and there seemed to be none in the pipeline. The Euros crushed the US in the Solheim Cup. Then Wie, Creamer, Gulbis, Kim, Pressel & Lang changed all that thinking rather quickly - and they aren't the only ones out there.

I think Tiger's shadow obscures these young guys coming up now. You mentioned O'Hair - I like his game too - and there are others like Jason Gore ready to explode onto the scene. In 2004 Ryan Moore had the best amateur year in history since Bobby Jones' Grand Slam. After using his amateur exemptions to play in the Masters (13th) and the US Open (50th) he turned pro and earned his Tour Card on sponsors exemptions. Last player to do that was Tiger. You might see some of the other Nationwide grads do well. Jason Bohn won his 1st tour event this year as did Ted Purdy. Don't forget young guys like Chad Campbell and Charles Howell who seem to be taking their time to develop. Not every one develops early like Tiger, Mickelson and even Furyk. Just look at guys like Toms & DiMarco who took a while.

The womens game is definetely a good example, it was as if they missed a full 20 years ie. yesterday's greats had to hit 40 years old before, youngsters under 20 started to explode on the scene (bit of an exageration, I know Kerr and others are are exceptions to this rule).

As regards the guys, I wouldn't be that worried either, it was just something some commentators were talking about.
The US have 5 in top 10, world rankings and 22 in the top 50, so until that changes dramatically, American's will be smiling.

If US loses the dominant world number 1 though, feathers will be ruffled, no matter how many they have in the top 50. That's another thing that is unlikely to happen soon though.

If Sergio's putting would come close to all other facets of his game, I think he would be challenging Tiger for supremacy right now. He hits it so well it's scary. Excellent around the greens too. Trouble comes once he gets on them.

But I believe Moore is the one to watch develop over the next couple of years. He's a stud with a champions heart.

I'm guessing a "stud" means something else in America. Over here it basically means a man who "gets" alot of women.

Just in relation to Sergio, I think another one who could be put in exactly the same category is Monty. I'm sure you saw the American Express where Tiger beat Daly in the playoff. If Monty had been half decent with his putter, he could have won that tournament by 7-8 shots easily.

It is fairly common in the US to apply the term "stud" to the very best athletes who exude a winners quality. (Only the best get the best girls, mares, or whatever.) It's probably not used very often in reference to golf but Tiger, for instance, would be a stud by any definition.

Norman---will you ever get it Wins, Wins, Wins! It's all about Wins and Michelle Wie does not have any! Zip, Zero, Nada, None! You make arguments saying that if Michelle had 8 wins and Paula had 9, nonsense she has 0 and you can not make the argument that she is or ever will be better than anybody until she has won, preferably multiple times. potential is a wonderful thing and in your case it is your only argument. Michelle has played good golf and posted nice results in the majors, but has yet to show herself, the world and her competitors that she can win. When she does then we can start talking about the future of women's golf. Right now I will take Paula Creamer and her two tour victories.

Very good to have finally read your post. When i replied to your past article although I didn’t receive a reply.Is this particular template a common template or maybe you've hand crafted your blog post Thanks again.

TravelGolf.com’s Kiel Christianson comments on golf technology, from balls and clubs to apparel and shoes, instruction and fitness He also blogs about the golf lifestyle, including food, wine, and golf courses and resorts around the world.

San Vicente Resort and the "Valley of The Sun" is nestled in the rolling hills of Ramona, California, San Vicente Golf Course is truly a great getaway from the stresses of city life. Our championship golf course, designed by Ted Robinson, offers a challenging 18 holes with a Par 72, measuring in length 5,501 – 6,633 yards. San Vicente is considered to be one of the most scenic San Diego golf courses.